**************************************** Mother Earth is extremely important to us. She is the sacred vessel that contains the singularity that gave birth to our galaxy. She and she alone holds within her the Light energy stargate that sustains all the realities which make up our galaxy.

Ten centuries ago, at the previous millennium, a Viking lordcommanded the rising tide to retreat. No deluded fool,King Canute aimed in this way to teach flatterers alesson -- that even sovereign rulers cannot halt inexorablechange.

A thousand years later, we face tides of technology-driventransformation that seem bound only to accelerate. Waves ofinnovation may liberate human civilization, or disrupt it, more thananything since glass lenses and movable type. Critical decisionsduring the next few years -- about research, investment, law andlifestyle -- may determine what kind of civilization our childreninherit. Especially problematic are many information-relatedtechnologies that loom on the near horizon -- technologies that mayfoster tyranny, or else empower citizenship in a true globalvillage.

Typically we are told, often and passionately, that Big Brother mayabuse these new powers. Or else our privacy and rights will beviolated by some other group. Perhaps a commercial, aristocratic,bureaucratic, intellectual, foreign, criminal or technologicalelite. (Pick your favorite bogeyman.)

Because one or more of these centers of power might use the newtools to see better, we're told that we should all be very afraid.Indeed, our only hope may be to squelch or fiercely control theonslaught of change. For the sake of safety and liberty, we areoffered one prescription: We must limit the power of others to see.

Half a century ago, amid an era of despair, George Orwell createdone of the most oppressive metaphors in literature with thetelescreen system used to surveil and control the people in hisnovel "1984." We have been raised to a high degree of sensitivityby Orwell's self-preventing prophecy, and others like it. Attunedto wariness, today's activists preach that any growth in the state'sability to see will take us down a path of no return, toward theendless hell of Big Brother.

But consider. The worst aspect of Orwell's telescreen -- the traitguaranteeing tyranny -- was not that agents of the state could useit to see. The one thing that despots truly need is to avoidaccountability. In "1984," this is achieved by keeping thetelescreen aimed in just one direction! By preventing the peoplefrom looking back.

While a flood of new discoveries may seem daunting, they should notundermine the core values of a calm and knowledgeable citizenry.Quite the opposite: While privacy may have to be redefined, the newtechnologies of surveillance should and will be the primarycountervailing force against tyranny.

In any event, none of those who denounce the new technologies haveshown how it will be possible to stop this rising tide.

Consider a few examples:

Radio frequency identification ( RFID ) technology will soon replacethe simple, passive bar codes on packaged goods, substitutinginexpensive chips that respond to microwave interrogation, makingevery box of toothpaste or razor blades part of a vast, automaticinventory accounting system. Wal-Mart announced in 2003 that itwill require its top 100 suppliers to use RFID on all large cartons,for purposes of warehouse inventory keeping. But that is only thebeginning. Inevitably as prices fall, RFID chips will beincorporated into most products and packaging.

Supermarket checkout will become a breeze, when you simply push yourcart past a scanner and grab a printout receipt, with every purchaseautomatically debited from your account.

Does that sound simultaneously creepy and useful? Well, it goesmuch further. Under development are smart washers that will readthe tags on clothing and adjust their cycles accordingly, and smartmedicine cabinets that track tagged prescriptions, in order to warnwhich ones have expired or need refilling. Cars and desks andcomputers will adjust to your preferred settings as you approach.Paramedics may download your health status -- including allergiesand dangerous drug-conflicts -- even if you are unconscious orunable to speak.

There's a downside. A wonderful 1960s paranoia satire, "ThePresident's Analyst," offered prophetic warning against implanteddevices, inserted into people, that would allow them to be trackedby big business and government. But who needs implantation whenyour clothing and innocuous possessions will carry cheap tags oftheir own that can be associated with their owners? Already someschools -- especially in Asia -- are experimenting with RFID systemsthat will locate all students, at all times.

Oh, there will be fun to be had, for a while, in fooling thesesystems with minor acts of irreverent rebellion. Picture kidsswapping clothes and possessions, furtively, in order to leavemuddled trails. Still, such measures will not accomplish much overextended periods. Tracking on vast scales, national and worldwide,will emerge in rapid order. And if we try to stop it withlegislation, the chief effect will only be to drive the surveillanceinto secret networks that are just as pervasive. Only they willoperate at levels we cannot supervise, study, discuss or understand

Wait, there's more. For example, a new Internet protocol (IPv6)will vastly expand available address space in the virtual world.

The present IP, offering 32-bit data labels, can now offer everyliving human a unique online address, limiting direct access tosomething like 10 billion Web pages or specific computers. Incontrast, IPv6 will use 128 bits. This will allow the virtualtagging of every cubic centimeter of the earth's surface, from sealevel to mountaintop, spreading a multidimensional data overlayacross the planet. Every tagged or manmade object may participate,from your wristwatch to a nearby lamppost, vending machine or trashcan -- even most of the discarded contents of the trash can.

Every interest group will find some kind of opportunity in this newworld. Want to protect forests? Each and every tree on earth mighthave a chip fired into its bark from the air, alerting a network iffurtive loggers start transporting stolen hardwoods. Or the samemethod could track whoever steals your morning paper. Not longafter this, teens and children will purchase rolls of ultra-cheapdigital eyes and casually stick them onto walls. Millions of those"penny cams" will join in the fun, contributing to the vast IPv6datasphere.

Oh, this new Internet protocol will offer many benefits -- forexample, embedded systems for data tracking and verification. Inthe short term, expanded powers of vision may embolden tyrants. Butover the long run, these systems could help to empower citizens andenhance mutual trust.

In the mid-'90s, when I began writing "The Transparent Society," itseemed dismaying to note that Great Britain had almost 150,000 CCDpolice cameras scanning public streets. Today, they number in themillions.

In the United States, a similar proliferation, though just as rapid,has been somewhat masked by a different national tradition -- thatof dispersed ownership. As pointed out by UC-San Diego researcherMohan Trivedi, American constabularies have few cameras of theirown. Instead, they rely on vast numbers of security monitorsoperated by small and large companies, banks, markets and privateindividuals, who scan ever larger swaths of urban landscape. Nearlyall of the footage that helped solve the Oklahoma City bombing andthe D.C. sniper episode -- as well as documenting the events of9/11 -- came from unofficial sources.

This unique system can be both effective and inexpensive for stateagencies, especially when the public is inclined to cooperate, as insearches for missing children. Still, there are many irksomedrawbacks to officials who may want more pervasive and directsurveillance. For one thing, the present method relies upon highlevels of mutual trust and goodwill between authorities and theowners of those cameras -- whether they be convenience-storecorporations or videocam-equipped private citizens. Moreover, whilemany crimes are solved with help from private cameras, more policeare also held accountable for well-documented lapses in professionalbehavior.

This tattletale trend began with the infamous beating of RodneyKing, more than a decade ago, and has continued at an acceleratingpace. Among recently exposed events were those that aroused disgust(the tormenting of live birds in the Pilgrim's Pride slaughterhouse)and shook America's stature in the world (the prisoner abuse byjailers at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq). Each time the lesson is thesame one: that professionals should attend to their professionalism,or else the citizens and consumers who pay their wages will find outand -- eventually -- hold them accountable.

(Those wishing to promote the trend might look into Project Witnesswhich supplies cameras to underdogs around the world.)

Will American authorities decide to abandon this quaint socialbargain of shared access to sensors under dispersed ownership? Asthe price of electronic gear plummets, it will become easy and cheapfor our professional protectors to purchase their own dedicatedsystems of surveillance, like those already operating in Britain,Singapore and elsewhere. Systems that "look down from above"(surveillance) without any irksome public involvement.

Or might authorities simply use our networks without asking? Adecade ago, the U.S. government fought activist groups such as theElectronic Frontier Foundation, claiming a need to unlockcommercial-level encryption codes at will, for the sake of lawenforcement and national defense. Both sides won apparentvictories. High-level commercial encryption became widelyavailable. And the government came to realize that it doesn'tmatter. It never did.

Shall I go on?

Driven partly by security demands, a multitude of biometrictechnologies will identify individuals by scanning physicalattributes, from fingerprints, iris patterns, faces and voices tobrainwaves and possibly unique chemical signatures. Starting withthose now entering and leaving the United States, whole classes ofpeople will grow accustomed to routine identification in this way.Indeed, citizens may start to demand more extensive use of biometricidentification, as a safety measure against identity theft. Whenyour car recognizes your face, and all the stores can verify yourfingerprint, what need will you have for keys or a credit card?

Naturally, this is yet another trend that has put privacy activistsin a lather. They worry -- with some justification -- about civilliberties implications when the police or FBI might scan multitudes(say, at a sporting event) in search of fugitives or suspects.Automatic software agents will recognize individuals who passthrough one camera view, then perform a smooth handoff to the nextcamera, and the next, planting a "tail" on dozens, hundreds, or tensof thousands of people at a time.

And yes, without a doubt this method could become a potent tool forsome future Big Brother.

So? Should that legitimate and plausible fear be addressed byreflexively blaming technology and seeking ways to restrict its use?Or by finding ways that technology may work for us, instead ofagainst us?

Suppose you could ban or limit a particular identificationtechnique. (Mind you, I've seen no evidence that it can be done.)The sheer number of different, overlapping biometric approaches willmake that whole approach fruitless. In fact, human beings fizz andfroth with unique traits that can be spotted at a glance, even withour old-fashioned senses. Our ancestors relied on this fact,building and correlating lists of people who merited trust or worry,from among the few thousands that they met in person. In a globalvillage of 10 billion souls, machines will do the same thing for usby prosthetically amplifying vision and augmenting memory.

With so many identification methodologies working independently andin parallel, our children may find the word "anonymous" impossiblyquaint, perhaps even incomprehensible. But that needn't mean an endto freedom -- or even privacy. Although it will undoubtedly mean aredefinition of what we think privacy means.

The shared adjective may be premature. These systems will provideimproved service long before anything like actual "artificialintelligence" comes online. Yet machinery needn't be strictlyintelligent in order to transform our lives. Moreover, distributed"smart" units will also gather information, joining together incross-correlating networks that recognize travelers, performsecurity checks, negotiate micro-transactions, detect criminalactivity, warn of potential danger and anticipate desires. Whenthese parts fully interlink, the emerging entity may not beself-aware, but it will certainly know the whereabouts of its myriadparts.

Location awareness will pervade the electronic world, thanks to evermore sophisticated radio transceivers, GPS chips, andgovernment-backed emergency location initiatives like Enhanced-911in the United States and Enhanced-112 in Europe. Cellphones,computers and cars will report position and unique identity in realtime, with (or possibly without) owner consent. Lives will besaved, property recovered, and missing children found. But thesebenefits aren't the real reason that location awareness andreporting will spread to nearly every device. As described byscience fiction author Vernor Vinge, it is going to happen becausethe capability will cost next to nothing as an integrated part ofwireless technology. In the future, you can assume that almost anyelectronic device will be trackable, though citizens still have timeto debate who may do the tracking.

The flood of information has to go someplace. Already databasesfill with information about private individuals, from tax andmedical records to credit ratings; from travel habits and retailpurchases to which movies they recently downloaded on their TiVopersonal video recorder. Yahoo's HotJobs recently began selling"self" background checks, offering job seekers a chance to vet theirown personal, financial and legal data -- the same information thatcompanies might use to judge them. (True, a dating service thatalready screens for felons, recently expanded its partnership withdatabase provider Rapsheets to review public records and verify auser's single status.) Data aggregators like Acxiom Corp., ofArkansas, or ChoicePoint, of Georgia, go even further, listing yourcar loans, outstanding liens and judgments, any professional orpilot or gun licenses, credit checks, and real estate you might own-- all of it gathered from legal and open sources.

On the plus side, you'll be able to find and counter those rumorsand slanderous untruths that can slash from the dark. The abilityof others to harm you with lies may decline drastically. On theother hand, it will be simple for almost anybody using these methodsto appraise the background of anyone else, including all sorts ofunpleasant things that are inconveniently true. In other words, therest of us will be able to do what elites (define them as you wish,from government to aristocrats to criminal masterminds) already can.

Some perceive this trend as ultimately empowering, while others seeit as inherently oppressive. For example, activist groups from theACLU to the Electronic Privacy Information Center call forEuropean-style legislation aiming to seal the data behind perfectfirewalls into separate, isolated clusters that cannot cross-link oroverlap. And in the short term, such efforts may prove beneficial.New database filters may help users find information theylegitimately need while protecting personal privacy ... for awhile, buying us time to innovate for the long term.

But we mustn't fool ourselves. No firewall, program or machine hasever been perfect, or perfectly implemented by fallible humanbeings. Whether the law officially allows it or not, can any effortby mere mortals prevent data from leaking? (And just one brief leakcan spill a giant database into public knowledge, forever.)Cross-correlation will swiftly draw conclusions that are far moresignificant than the mere sum of the parts, adding up to aprofoundly detailed picture of every citizen, down to details ofpersonal taste.

Here's a related tidbit from the Washington Post: Minnesotaentrepreneur Larry Colson has developed WebVoter, a program thatlets Republican activists in the state report their neighbors'political views into a central database that the Bush-Cheneycampaign can use to send them targeted campaign literature. TheBush campaign has a similar program on its Web site. And here'sColson's response to anyone who feels a privacy qualm or two aboutthis program: "[It's] not as if we're asking for Social Securitynumber and make and model and serial number of car. We're askingfor party preference ... Party preference is not something that issuch a personal piece of data."

That statement may be somewhat true in today's America. We tend toshrug over each other's harmless or opinionated eccentricities. Butcan that trait last very long when powerful groups scrutinize us,without being scrutinized back? In the long run, tolerance dependson the ability of any tolerated minority to enforce its right to beleft alone. This is achieved assertively, not by hiding. Andassertiveness is empowered by knowledge.

The picture so far may seem daunting enough. Only now add a floodof new sensors. We have already seen the swift and inexpensivetransformation of mere cellphones into a much more general,portable, electronic tool by adding the capabilities of a digitalcamera, audio recorder and PDA. But have we fully grasped theimplications, when any well-equipped pedestrian might swiftlytransform into an ad hoc photojournalist -- or peeping Tom --depending on opportunity or inclination?

On the near horizon are wearable multimedia devices, with displaysthat blend into your sunglasses, along with computational,data-storage and communications capabilities woven into the veryclothes you wear. The term "augmented reality" will apply whenthese tools overlay your subjective view of the world with digitallysupplied facts, directions or commentary. You will expect -- andrely on -- rapid answers to queries about any person or object insight. In essence, this will be no different than querying yourneuron-based memories about people in the village where you grew up.Only we had a million years to get used to tracking reputations thatway. The new prosthetics that expand memory will prove awkward atfirst.

Today we worry about drivers who use cellphones at the wheel.Tomorrow will it be distracted pedestrians, muttering to no one asthey walk? Will we grunt and babble while strolling along, likevillage idiots of yore?

Maybe not. Having detected nerve signals near the larynx that arepreparatory to forming words, scientists at NASA Ames ResearchCenter lately proposed subvocal speech systems -- like thoseforecast in my 1989 novel "Earth" -- that will accept commandswithout audible sounds. They would be potentially useful inspacesuits, noisy environments and to reduce the inevitable babblewhen we are all linked by wireless all the time.

Taking this trend in more general terms, volition sensing may pickup an even wider variety of cues, empowering you to converse, givecommands, or participate in faraway events without speaking aloud orshowing superficial signs.

Is this the pre-dawn of tech-mediated telepathy? It may be closerthan you think. Advertising agencies are already funding researchgroups that usePET scans and fMRI to study the immediate reactionsof test subjects to marketing techniques and images. "We arecrossing the chasm" said Adam Koval, chief operating officer ofThought Sciences, a division of Bright House, an Atlanta advertisingand consulting firm whose clients include Home Depot, Delta Airlinesand Coca-Cola, "and bringing a new paradigm in analytic rigor to theworld of marketing and advertising." Those who decry such studiesface a tough burden, since all of the test subjects are paidvolunteers. But how about when these methods leave the laboratoryand hit the street? It is eerie to imagine a future when sensitivedevices might scan your very thoughts when you pass by. Clearlythere must be limits, only how? Will you be better able to protectyourself if these technologies are banned (and thus drivenunderground) or regulated, with a free market that might offer usall pocket detectors, to catch scanners in the act?

Microsoft recently unveiled Sensecam, a camera disguisable asjewelry that automatically records scores of images per hour fromthe wearer's point of view, digitally documenting an ongoing dailyphoto-diary. Such "Boswell machinery" may go far beyond egomania.For example, what good will your wallet do to a mugger when imagesof the crime are automatically broadcast across the Web? Soon,cyber-witnessing of public events, business deals, crimes andaccidents will be routine. In movie parlance, you will have toassume that everybody you meet is carrying a "wire."

Meanwhile, you can be sure that military technologies will continuespinning off civilian versions, as happened with infrared nightvision. Take "sniffers" designed to warn of environmental orchemical dangers on the battlefield. Soon, cheap and plentifulsensors will find their way into neighborhood storm drains, ontolampposts, or even your home faucet, giving rapid warnings of localpollution. Neighborhood or activist groups that create detectornetworks will have autonomous access to data rivaling that of localgovernments. Of course, a better-informed citizenry is sure to bemore effective...

...and far more noisy.

The same spinoff effect has emerged from military development ofinexpensive UAV battlefield reconnaissance drones. Some of the"toys" offered by Draganfly Innovations can cruise independently formore than an hour along a GPS-guided path, transmit 2.4 GHz digitalvideo, then return automatically to the hobbyist owner. In othercompanies and laboratories, the aim is toward miniaturization,developing micro-flyers that can assist an infantry squad in anurban skirmish or carry eavesdropping equipment into the lair of asuspected terrorist. Again, civilian models are already starting toemerge. There may already be some in your neighborhood.

Cheap, innumerable eyes in the sky. One might envision dozens ofpotentially harmful uses ... hundreds of beneficial ones ... andmillions of others in between ranging from irksome to innocuous ...all leading toward a fundamental change in the way each of usrelates to the horizon that so cruelly constrained the imaginationof our ancestors. Just as baby boomers grew accustomed to viewingfaraway places through the magical -- though professionally mediated-- channel of network television, so the next generation will simplyassume that there is always another independent way to glimpsereal-time events, either far away or just above the streets wherethey live.

Should we push for yet another unenforceable law to guard ourbackyards against peeping Toms and their drone planes? Or perhapswe'd be better off simply insisting that the companies that make thelittle robot spies give us the means to trace them back to theirnosy pilots. In other words, looking back may be a more effectiveway to protect privacy.

One might aim for reciprocal transparency using new technology.Forexample, Swiss researcher Marc Langheinrich's personal digitalassistant application detects nearby sensors and then lists whatkind of information they're collecting. At a more radical andpolemical level, there is the sousveillance movement, led byUniversity of Toronto professor Steve Mann. Playing off"surveillance" (overlooking from above), Mann's coined term suggeststhat we should all get in the habit of looking from below, provingthat we are sovereign and alert citizens down here, not helplesssheep. Mann contends that private individuals will be empowered todo this by new senses, dramatically augmented by wearable electronicdevices.

We have skimmed over a wide range of new technologies, from RFIDchips and stick-on penny cameras to new Internet address protocolsand numerous means of biometric identification. From databasemining and aggregation to sensors that detect chemical pollution orthe volition to speak or act before your muscles get a chance tomove. From omni-surveillance to universal localization. From eyesin the sky to those that may invade your personal space.

Note a common theme. Every device or function that's been describedhere serves to enhance some human sensory capability, from sight andhearing to memory. And while some may fret and fume, there is nohistorical precedent for a civilization refusing such prostheticswhen they become available.

Such trends cannot be boiled down to a simple matter of good news orbad. While technologies of distributed vision may soon empowercommon folk in dramatic ways, giving a boost to participatorydemocracy by highly informed citizens, you will not hear that sideof the message from most pundits, who habitually portray the verysame technologies in a darker light, predicting that machines areabout to destroy privacy, undermine values and ultimately enslaveus.

In fact, the next century will be much too demanding for fixedperspectives. (Or rigid us-vs.-them ideologies.) Agility will befar more useful, plus a little healthy contrariness.

When in the company of reflexive pessimists -- or knee-jerkoptimists -- the wise among us will be those saying ... "Yes,but..."

Which way will the pendulum of good and bad news finally swing?

We are frequently told that there is a fundamental choice to be madein a tragic trade-off between safety and freedom. While agents ofthe state, like former Attorney General John Ashcroft, demand newpowers of surveillance -- purportedly the better to protect us --champions of civil liberties such as the ACLU warn against surrenderingtraditional constraints upon what the government is allowed to see.For example, they decry provisions of the PATRIOT Act that openbroader channels of inspection, detection, search and datacollection, predicting that such steps take us on the road towardBig Brother.

While they are right to fear such an outcome, they could not be morewrong about the specifics. As I discuss in greater detailelsewhere, the very idea of a trade-off between security and freedomis one of the most insidious and dismal notions I have ever heard --a perfect example of a devil's dichotomy. We modern citizens areliving proof that people can and should have both. Freedom andsafety, in fact, work together, not in opposition. Furthermore, Irefuse to let anybody tell me that I must choose between liberty formy children and their safety! I refuse, and so should you.

As we've seen throughout this article, and a myriad other possibleexamples, there is no way that we will ever succeed in limiting thepower of the elites to see and know. If our freedom depends onblinding the mighty, then we haven't a prayer.

Fortunately, that isn't what really matters after all. Moreover,John Ashcroft clearly knows it. By far the most worrisome anddangerous parts of the PATRIOT Act are those that remove the toolsof supervision, allowing agents of the state to act secretly,without checks or accountability. (Ironically, these are the veryportions that the ACLU and other groups have most neglected.)

In comparison, a few controversial alterations of procedure forsearch warrants are pretty minor. After all, appropriate levels ofsurveillance may shift as society and technology experience changesin a new century. (The Founders never heard of a wiretap, forexample.)

But our need to watch the watchers will only grow.

It is a monopoly of vision that we need to fear above all else. Solong as most of the eyes are owned by the citizens themselves, therewill remain a chance for us to keep arguing knowledgeably amongourselves, debating and bickering, as sovereign, educated citizensshould.

It will not be a convenient or anonymous world. Privacy may have tobe redefined much closer to home. There will be a lot of noise.

But we will not drown under a rising tide of overwhelmingtechnology. Keeping our heads, we will remain free to guide ourships across these rising waters -- to choose a destiny of our own

Thanks goes to David Brin for the above article.

A word from Privacy World during Halloween!

If you are tired of being tricked by big brother and his motleycrew, you can become a ghost as well as a sovereign individual!Become a ghost by acquiring a:

1. Banking passport with any name and date of birth (valid for 5years and renewal for life.)2. Anonymous offshore company with an eBanking deposit on-linebank account (in the name of the company.)3. Easy to use Internet banking, i.e. send & receive swift wireson-line4. Anonymous ATM card5. A physical (hold in your hand) no name credit card6. Highly confidential and private mail drop service for one year,including $50 postage deposit.

The above package normally sells for more than Eur 10,000. Butexclusively for Privacy World subscribers who remit payment on orbefore November 15th, 2006, no tricks from Privacy World. You'llreceive a treat from us, a whopping Eur 5005 discount.

For just Eur 4995 you can become a ghost with all the treats listedabove.

But that's not all!

If you are amongst the first 9 who place a paid order, we'll throwin absolutely free, a Virtual any name on-line credit card. That'sa US$550 value alone just for that product!

That makes for nearly a Eur 5,500 savings on this special onlyoffer. This is a one off offer, not to be made again. Strictlyfirst come, first served.

Send us an e-mail and place "Halloween Package" in the subjectheading. Indicate your preferred method of payment, i.e. bank swiftwire, e-gold, e-bullion or MoneyGram. We will instruct you whereand to whom to remit funds for fastest service.

Please DO NOT write asking for more details. The full package isdescribed exactly as above.

This offer is for serious persons only, so please do not waste yourtime or ours asking more questions.

Once we receive your payment we'll send you the passport applicationand full details and where and how to courier your pictures anddetails.

Bank set up time is very fast indeed and you'll be a Ghost andsovereign individual faster than you can say "Happy Halloween FromPrivacy World!"